1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates generally to computer-based athlete performance rating systems and methods. More particularly, the present invention relates to computer-based systems and methods of rating tennis players.
2. Description of the Prior Art
As with most sports, the game of tennis is often most enjoyable to play, and is nearly always most entertaining to watch, when the contesting players are evenly, or nearly evenly, matched with each other.
In an effort to identify players of comparable skill levels, numerous player rating systems have been proposed and used in the past. The United States Tennis Association (USTA) has developed the National Tennis Rating Program (NTRP), which is widely used throughout the United States. The International Tennis Federation (ITF) has developed the International Tennis Number (ITN), which is widely used outside of the United States. In both of these prior systems, players having identical rating numbers (or “ratings”) are purported to be of comparable skill level. In theory, when players having identical ratings under such prior systems face each other in tennis matches, the matches are expected to be competitive.
Despite the wide use of the NTRP and ITF rating systems, many (if not most) amateur tournament tennis matches, even those in which tournament participation is restricted to players having identical player ratings under such prior systems, are notoriously non-competitive. That is, in such matches one player badly beats an opponent, as evidenced most noticeably by a lopsided match score.
A common cause of such non-competitive tennis matches relates to the difficulty in identifying in advance whether potential opponents are equally skilled or equally proficient at playing tennis. This is particularly the case when the potential opponents have not previously (and recently) played each other.
While the NTRP and ITF (and similar prior) tennis player rating systems attempt to identify tennis players who, if they were to play each other, would likely be competitive with one another, such prior systems, in practice, quite frequently fail to achieve that end.
There are several reasons why the use of NTRP and ITF (and similar prior) tennis player rating systems frequently fail to facilitate setting up of predictably competitive matches between players of comparable tennis skill and proficiency, particularly when the players have not recently played each other.
One problem with prior tennis player rating systems is that they all fundamentally rely on a subjective analysis of each player's tennis skills. Because such prior systems fundamentally rely on a subjective analysis of each player's tennis skills, the player's rating is inherently subjective. Because, under such prior systems, each player's rating is inherently subjective, there is considerable opportunity for errors/variations in assigning rating numbers to individual players. Such errors/variations in assigning rating numbers increase the likelihood of non-competitive matches between players having the same rating number.
Because, under such prior systems, each player's rating is inherently subjective, there is considerable opportunity for a single player's rating to be judged differently by different people. Similarly, under such prior systems, there are often discrepancies between the rating that a player is assigned (by a second party) and the rating that the player assigns to himself. Such discrepancies increase the likelihood of non-competitive matches between players having the same rating number.
Because, under such prior systems, each player's rating is inherently subjective, players of comparable tennis skill and proficiency levels who receive ratings in different geographic areas are frequently assigned different ratings. Such assignment of different ratings to players in different geographic areas increases the likelihood of non-competitive matches between players having the same rating number.
Another problem with such prior systems is that player ratings are predominantly influenced by, and in many cases entirely based on, players' tennis skills (such as proficiency at hitting hit drop shots, forehand ground stokes, backhand ground strokes, overheads, lobs, serves, etc.), rather than on the outcome of matches played. Because, under such prior systems, the ratings are based predominantly (if not entirely) on observing each player's playing skills, rather than on match outcomes, it is not uncommon for the outcome of matches between similarly-rated players to be lopsided (for example, in favor of the player who is more “tournament tough” or match-savvy).
Another problem with prior tennis rating systems is that each rating level is typically defined by a general grouping of a plurality of specific tennis player skills. It is, of course, possible that a tennis player who has mastered, say, an accurate, high-speed, un-returnable service (a characteristic, under prior rating systems, of a typically highly rated player) has, say, an exceptionally poor backhand (a characteristic, under prior rating systems, of a typically lowly rated player). Because such a player has specific tennis skills that, under prior rating systems, are associated with different rating levels, it is difficult to assign such a player a meaningful rating under such prior rating systems. Such difficulty, under prior rating systems, to assign meaningful ratings to players having skill sets that are different pre-established skill-set groupings, increases the likelihood of non-competitive matches between players having the same rating number.
Because rating levels in such prior rating systems are defined by specific groupings of a plurality of tennis player skills, there can be a relatively wide (competitiveness) range of players within each rating grouping. Furthermore, in the absence of input regarding actual match outcomes between players within the same rating group, it is difficult, under such prior rating systems alone, to split a rating group into sub-groups (i.e., with different ratings) that comprise only players who, predictably, would be competitive with one another. Such difficulty to split up (i.e., identify) players within a rating group into sub-groups increases the likelihood of non-competitive matches between players having the same rating number.
Another problem with prior rating systems is that, because they are predominantly (if not entirely) based on analyses of each player's tennis skills level, it is impractical, if not impossible, to make real-time, (or nearly real-time) adjustments in each player's rating as such adjustments (under prior rating systems) would only be assignable after conducting an analysis of the player's current tennis skill sets, and a rating adjustment would only be warranted if such analysis concluded that there is noticeable change in the player's tennis skills. Such impracticality (if not impossibility) to make real-time adjustments to players' ratings increases the likelihood of non-competitive matches between players having the same rating number.
An inherent attribute of player rating systems is the ability to “rank” players of different rating levels based on their respective ratings. That is, in prior rating systems, such as the NTRP system, a player who has few tennis skills would have a low rating, and a player who has highly developed tennis skills would have a high rating. It can easily be inferred that, in an “open” tournament, a highly rated player would be higher ranked than a lowly rated player. In theory, then, it is possible to rank players based, at least in part, by their individual ratings. A problem with such prior rating systems, however, is that player rankings are not readily affected by recent match outcomes.